Tue, Nov 24th - 11:53AM

http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20091124025623.aspx

The POTUS has his feet to the fire.  Will he respond like David to the Challenge From God that came from Nathan The Prophet?  I understand a Loving Father and Not Sparing the Rod of Correction to a Child He Loves.  Barak Hussein Obama may just be getting a demonstration of this love.  We can hope and pray he will see it this way.  He claims he is a Christian.  This could become a point of epiphany for him.  I have HOPE and PRAY that he will.  It would shock many in America, and the World, and the most powerful man in the world would have to humble himself.  This is no small thing I ask of My God.  But My God is THAT big!

AMEN,

Mel

Fri, Nov 20th - 3:45PM

I don't have time to make a long post.

However, with Government Managed Care just around the corner, it seems that one more thing needs to be considered:

What care will be rationed if we have a one payer system (that the biased Public Option will lead to in less than 14 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office) becomes a reality.

Simple.  It will be those that Government Panels have decided were unneeded.

You should probabaly read this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/19/AR2009111904053.html

Um.  This was an Official Government Panel.  They work for the Highest Government Authority on Health Care that will be getting all these neat new powers to decide who gets what in the medical world.  Guess what would have happened if we had already had OBAMACARE for 10 years or so?  Probably we would have routinely stopped insuring mamograms for women aged 40-49.  You want one?  Your body -- your choice.  But you'd STILL have to pay for it.

Now this is something to get upset about, ladies!  This study may be right, but are you going to let them TELL you that such a precaution is not worth the money, but an abortion for anyone who wants one is?

Maybe it's not a Death Panel.  I really don't think this one item rises to that level.  This article points out that this Government Study might actually be onto something here:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/223696

However, this is the point to remember:  If we give ourselves a system that becomes "Socialized Medicine", you will have NO choice but to expect that what such a panel as this says, goes.  Expect to loose a lot of health care that is seen as 'unneeded' and 'worthless' in the eyes of the 'experts' who <> may have had it wrong for all these years!  And some things, like cosmetic surgery for washed up movies stars?  Well, there is always the chance we will all foot that bill instead...

In Truth,

Mel

A P.S. Link:

http://voices.kansascity.com/node/6594

Ouch!

Thu, Nov 12th - 4:27PM

To one of my previous respondants: As for spinning sex and race, I assume you are saying that my numbers are skewed. Please check this link out. I might be a little high on the Women. My assertion of 60% support is pretty thumb in the air. If you run the numbers here, I might be high with that. So I'll grant that has validiity to see it that way, and may actually be more true than I realize.

However, if you take the numbers for Jan 26(81% Strongly approve), Apr 1(84% Strongly approve), Apr 29(76% Strongly approve), May 5(95% approve) and Jul 20(97% approve) and average them together, you get 86.6% which is slightly higher than 17 to 3 approval that I stated for African Americans. That was also thumb in the air, but not so crazy and wild a guess, since I have seen very similar numbers all over the place. That was not a hard guess to make, and I didn't even say that it was very strong approval, but only stated that he had approval. If you started looking at the strength of the approval, I think you'd have a chance of finding that even more skewed.

Now. I have had conversations along these lines on public transportation - mostly the train. Just so you know what population I am testing the pulse of. I posed the question "why?" and got pretty much the answer that seemed to be the "good" sounding answer: "Because he represents African Americans." When pressed if that is because they thought he was black himself, the answer was almost universally "Yes" and I must admit, it was somewhat a leading question from me. However, when I restated what they said along the lines of "So, because he is an African American, for African Americans, it is alright to support him primarily along Racial Lines?", I was surprised at how many hestitated to go there. You could see them mentally stepping back, because they realized just how "racist" that kind of position was. That was always a pleasant surprise! I am quite jaded in how people really don't seem to understand this.

I still sadly must report that many/most of them glibbly would say "yes" to that. My follow up response was either to say that was racist, to which the most common defense was that it was "postive" racism, or I would just skip that part and state what I would get to eventually ==>> If that was ok, then it was ok for me to vote for McCain because he was a White American for White Americans, paraphrasing it in the exact terms they used for B Obama. At which point the message seemed to sink in that at least they should not continue this conversation because they were loosing -- badly. If it was racist for me, why was it not racist for an African American? There is no good, non racist sounding answer for that one. Answer it, and you have to admit racism or answer as a racist in denial.

Oddly enough, I think that the people who bought that this kind of racism on the part of African Americans was acceptable were people who were not themselves African Americans. I am not sure why that is. I might be reaching, but I'd say that maybe African Americans are more keenly aware of Racism, but at the same time, willing to go there to "justifiably" even the odds, turn the tables, get a leg up, or whatever. They may have come from a disadvantaged background. Does that make getting ahead by any means possible justified? I don't know that this is the mindset.

Maybe someday someone will grace me with a glimpse of understanding on why that is. It might just be a fluke, and that observation was in no way made under any scientific method where I could point to numbers to back up my general impressions. All I can say is that the impression was contrary to what my prejudice in the matter was at the time. Yes, I thought black people would trip down that path a lot quicker than white or other non african americans would. I was wrong.

However, I am not sure if I related about the two students (I think they were students -- just before or after the election, I think) who were arguing about whether or not B Obama was black or not. Well, I thought the arguement was the height of stupidity. However, I may not have had all the facts:

Mr. Obama is 50% Caucasian, that from his mother. What those who want Mr. Obama to write history by becoming "America's first African-American president" ignore is that his father was ethnically Arabic, with only 1 relative ethnically African Negro - a maternal great-grandparent (Sen. Obama's great-great grandparent, thus the 6.25% ethnic contribution to the senator's ethnic composition.).

That means that Mr. Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side. He is 43.75% Arabic, and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side.

Put another way, his father could honestly claim African-American ethnic classification. He was the last generation able to do so.

Sen. Obama could honestly say, "My father was African-American." Racist presumptions led an Ivy League admissions committee, and lazy "newspapers of record" factcheckers, to presume that if his father is African-American, then Sen. Obama must be African-American also.

But it doesn't work that way. Racist presumptions coupled with sloppy vetting don't turn a lie into the truth.

Sen. Obama is one generation too far removed from the ethnic African Negro input to make the same claim as his father, Harvard's Admission's stamp of approval notwithstanding.

As you can see for yourself, Sen. Obama's African-American ethnic claim, when properly researched and documented, is a lie.

The question no one wants to answer - particularly Mr. Obama and his supporters, is, "Why do you think he has an Arabic name? Why does his father have an Arabic name? Why does every ancestor on his father's side have an Arabic name?"

The answer is obvious: They have Arabic names because his father's side of the family tree is Arabic.

I got this out of this site here. I have not researched this out myself, (and am not sure if I can) so at this point consider it this way: If Barack Hussein Obama is really an Arab and not an African American, just how many of us has he bamboozled???  I for one was one who was bamboozled on this point...

Yikes!

In Truth,

Mel

Tue, Nov 3rd - 5:57PM

Here is one that came out lately from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/03/obama.poll/

This is a good discussion of what CNN fails to mention about these numbers that is really more newsworthy then their not so delicate Pro-Obama spinning:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/03/cnn-poll-54-disapprove-of-obama-economic-performance/

If you were to believe CNN, everything is getting better for Obama and You Should Get On Board before the Train Leaves The Station.  The drastic swings in his popularity towards the loosing side is not newsworthy in their eyes.  I am sorry, but the train has already gone, and if you were on board, you are taking a looooong trip to nowhere, and Obama is nowhere on that fantasy train.  Some of the CNN staffers, who believe their own drivel, might be there with you, so you are at least likely to be able to take it out on them if you finally get mad enough to loose your temper over what they did to you...

Another thing that was brought out in critiquing this poll is that party demographics were not addressed.  Neither were the distributions by sex or race.  (although this critique did not point that out)  If you know anything about polling, bringing more of a group that is likely to be more favorable to the possition you are trying to support will skew your results away from reality quite quickly.  Women favor everything about Obama at about a 3 to 2 ratio on the average.  Democrats, almost 4 to 1 for him, at least mildly -- if not enthusiastically.  African Americans are about 17 to 3 pro-Obama, no matter what.  There is very little differentiation in that particular group.  In others, specific items cause great changes in the level of the support, depending upon the issue being addressed.  But for African Americans, that is not very much the case.  The Economy, the War in Iraq, the Health Care Bill, His Nobel Peace Prize, all the other issues score in a very narow band, at least acccording to those Polls that are willing to divulge that information.

I am very suspsicious of CNN's 'spectacular' news.  If they had bothered to mention the obviously newsworthy information, I might be more generous.  However, this strikes me as more PR work than real journalistic reporting.  And CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, NPR (and the list goes on) want *more* Government money than they already get so that they can tell you whatever they want to without worring about loosing their viewership and their jobs. Oh yes.  They are businesses that have been 'on the take' (well, NPR and some others are truely not for profit) to a small extent for quite some time.  They feel left out with the latest handouts from Uncle Sam, though...

I really expect that CNN deliberately withheld the demographic breakout, not because it would protect any privacy, but because the sample was so badly skewed that a high school teacher in statistics would likely use it as a very bad example of what a polling sample should look like in relation to the population that it is supposed to represent.  I expect at least 10% extra African American Democrat Women are in this poll.  So it likely tells us nothing about reality, but CNN does not care about that.  They are not about reality in news, but favorable liberal spin...

In Truth,

Mel

Wed, Oct 28th - 6:00PM

The 'Public Option' is one of the big Points to Push for Pelosi and the Extreme Left Leaning Liberals in Congress.  They would have you believe that this can be done 'for free'.  It won’t cost you and me anything.  Riiiiight…

Previously, the CBO had estimated that the 'Public Option' versions of Health Care Bills circulating in the House would increase the Federal Deficit by $1.1 Trillion in ten years.  That’s a Million Millions folks, and if boggles the mind.  That did not sit very well with ‘Madame’ Pelosi, especially because she could not claim partisan leanings from Douglas W. Elmendorf, whom the Democrats themselves just Confirmed as head of the ‘Non-Partisan’ CBO in December of 2008.  Worse yet, he is known to be a Democrat himself with somewhat left of center leanings within that party itself.  She had no one to cast spurious denigrating comments at in the CBO, so she had to try to get that assessment ignored until she could ‘fix’ the problem.  Most of us were not fooled, although her faithful liberal drones took it hook line and sinker, or just did not care about the cost, and so were willing to deny the truth to push their agenda forward.

Well, if you have been listening to CNN and other mainstream media lately, you have probably heard by now that the ‘New Improved Public Option’ would actually reduce the deficit according to the CBO.  They will point to one thing that causes this:  The ‘New Improved Public Option’ ties reimbursement rates for doctors to current Medicare rates, plus a 5 percent increase.  This doesn’t sound bad at all, now does it?  Well, that is only one of the changes that caused this change in price tag.  But for now, let’s just assume for a moment that this is really only the only change that causes this.  What does it really mean?

Well, one of the empty promises that Pelosi and her Cohorts are making is that ‘nothing will come between you and your doctor’ meaning that the government will not intervene and dictate what options are or are not available.  Guess what?  Not everything is available under Medicare.  Medicare Advantage, which millions of retired Americans now rely upon, is what allows them (at an out of pocket cost) to get treatments normally denied under Medicare.  So, if you are somehow forced into the Public Option, guess what?  You are going to lose options, unless getting paid for services rendered is nothing between everyone and their doctor…

By The Way, those people on Medicare Advantage are going to get the shaft.  For some of them, it will mean that previously available life saving or life sustaining treatments will no longer be something they will have access to.  In short, no ‘Death Panels’ are needed.  They will be denied and they will die.  Period.  Of course that will further reduce health care costs and I would not be shocked to find that reduction in costs computed somewhere deep in the latest CBO estimate.  For those whose lives do not depend upon Medicare Advantage (and I am not sure how many of those Millions we are going to sentence outright to death) there is at least going to be a drastic reduction in the quality of life.  It might be that their current treatment for dementia will not be available any more and they will just slip into a vegetative state using their ‘New Improved’ medications.  Remember the Red Pill/Blue Pill question President Obama asked us about?  Well, it is very literally this very thing.  You will not get to choose which pill.  The Government will choose for you.  Now swallow it, Neo!

I also expect that for some others, the reduction in the quality of their life will be in the form of increased physical pain.  For others, it could become depression that is no longer controlled.  The imagination is the only limit to all the harm the Government can cause here.  I would not at all be shocked to learn (if this passes) that some people’s lives will become so unbearable as a direct result of this that they commit suicide.  The real thing to watch very closely (and the liberal media will not go looking for this for you) is the mortality rates among our more senior citizens.  I expect a spike that liberal leaning statisticians could argue would be ‘spurious data’ which is a nice way to say that ‘those lives don’t matter’.

Before I get away from this assumption that the 5% over Medicare is going to cause all of these savings, I’d like to travel down a somewhat darker road.  Part of the problem in the current system is people being denied reasonable care based upon the fact that they may not have insurance.  Guess what?  Currently people are denied that reasonable care simply because they have Medicare as their insurance, which pays substandard rates and results in costs greater than the reimbursement.  Can you say Financial Failure?  What is going to happen if Hospitals can’t just send unwanted Medicare Patients to another Hospital?  They’ll go under.  Go away.  Not to be replaced without serious subsidies to make up for the lost revenues.  So the Federal Deficit may not go up, but someone, maybe the City, or maybe the State, will have to pay for the shortfall.  You and I will pay for that cost that the Federal Plan is trying to hide from us.  The ‘free lunch’ is only for Pelosi.  Oh, and if you want a real life shocker, investigate into the Chicago Hospital that sent a 4 year old boy to another Hospital because he was covered by Government Medicare.  And this was something that Michelle Obama can be indirectly linked to.  If someone as squeaky clean as her can be involved in this, what hope is there in the more general sense for our medical system to not respond in just such a fashion?

Keep your eye on the ball.  But you and I have no hope.  These shucksters have all the sleight of hand tricks down pat.

One of the points (made by the previous CBO reports – I don’t know if it has been excised from this one currently out) is that Private Insurance will be replaced by the Government Run ‘Public Option’ if it is put into play.  The reasoning is simple:  Companies will have to pay less for this insurance (which is substandard to the insurance they currently give their employees) because the Government can and will force rates upon providers that private insurance companies cannot.  So don’t be fooled.  Pelosi says you won’t loose your current insurance.  That is de jure, the truth, but de facto, a lie.  It will indirectly cause most of us to loose our current insurance.  So ask yourself which is more important:  The de jure truth that nothing mandates any changes in anyone’s insurance?  The de facto truth that the drastic change in the landscape is expected by the CBO to cause most all private insurance to be dropped within ten years?  How will this happen, you ask?

Again, this is quite simple.  Remember that Hospitals and Doctors are going to take a bath on Medicare plus 5% rates.  Private insurance negotiates and pays much higher rates than that, mostly to make up for lost revenues for those Doctors and Hospitals.  It is just the way it is done.  I am not saying that is right, in fact I don't think it is at all.  In fact I'd somewhat favor making the Hospitals accept the Government rates for all insurance, which would drive health insurance costs down and bankrupt the Doctors and Hospitals unless there was serious push back on Medicare rates which would expose the real cost, which we really need to come to grips with.  It is a hidden cost that is passed on to us without our seeing where it is coming from as it stands now.  Every person who gets onto Welfare and Medicare costs more than just what the Government Pays Directly.  Understand how that works and some of the games don't work for you so well any more.  Wake up!  Get real!  All is not as it seems!

An argument can actually be made that a contributing factor in why our costs have skyrocketed lately is that Illegal Immigrants put a financial burden on the Health Care industry.  Yeah, those 10+ Million (out of the 40 Million Number Pelosi and Obama love to bandy around so much) are probably costing us at least some of that... Some of these people would get no care whatsoever in their own country and that is sad.  John Leguizamo is very sympathetic of that need.  Enough so to make you an I pay for it.  But does he pay for it?  Just three guesses and the first two don't count.  Are you willing to pay a very heavy burden to make that health care so universal as to invite even more of them in for just this reason?  Bring more in and it increases costs that someone must pay.  Does their insurance pay for this?  Of course not.  Yours and mine does.  Now, increase the number of sub cost payments from the Government.  That is somewhat better than no payment from the patients, but who is really making that payment in the first place?  Yup – it is you and me, folks.  We are the taxpayers, for now – at least until this country goes completely in the toilet.  The first place they will make that money up is from the Private Insurance companies.  Those companies will be forced to raise rates at a pace that will make the current health care cost explosion look tame.  Companies will have people like you and I who will be justifiably angry with this and may even demand a change in health care providers, unaware at how the Government has caused this very problem to arise.  And as the number of private insurance companies gets smaller and smaller, the costs will rise faster and faster.  And the Democrats want Republicans to get on board to share the blame.  The smart Democrats are getting off at the soonest stop they can.  This is a boondoggle that is so big, the truth will eventually have to come out.  The smoke and mirrors will only work for so long.

Like I said before:  Keep your eye on the ball.  But you and I have no hope.  These shucksters have all the sleight of hand tricks down pat.

Better yet, tell them you don’t want to play their game anymore.  Get outta town!!!

In Truth,

Mel

P.S.

Of course, when I say 'we have no hope' I am speaking in the worldly sense.  Those who have no hope in Christ, well, they truely have no hope at all!!!

Here are some links for you.  They are all from the more Left Leaning Media sources, so if you can garner the message I have above out of what these people have spun it into, imagine just how bad the truth really is!

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/democratic-leaders-pick-budget-director/

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/28/health.care/

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/21/health.care.cbo/

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/27/health.care/

http://mediamatters.org/research/200910280029

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/bighollywood/2009/10/01/john-leguizamo-whats-wrong-with-socialism/  (I'll go to find the YouTube Version of this to keep it Totally Left Leaning -- just listen to Leguizamo here!!!)

http://www.cis.org/IllegalsAndHealthCareHR3200 (this is not very left of right leaning in my reading of it -- let me know what you think of them...)